Delicate Arch a little different. Sky and land a composite with the color of the MW removed because that is the way my eye at night sees it. This image is not intended as 100% realistic but just fun to view.

I think this would be a great image if the composite wasn't quite so obvious. I know people have different tastes and styles, but if you are going for a reallistic image, then this needs a bit of refinement. I also composite in a different sky sometimes, but I don't want the viewer to be able to see that. So for this image, the landscape is too bright in comparison to the sky. My mind could partly explain this brightness and harder light by a full moon, but even then, there wouldn't be nearly as many stars. The composite is also obvious when looking at the shadows of the mountain range on the horizon. Those should be darker than the sky in any condition. If you want a better blend I'd also suggest using a picture of the arch at night or during blue hour. Remeber this is just my opinion. Hope this helps a bit.

I feel it looks too "cookie cutter" ish where there is a strong mismatch between the foreground and the background. The background does not match the tones of the foreground, where it appears there is a perpetual amount of light that extends all the way to the mountains in an unnatural way. It strikes me as a composite, which is okay, but the good composites that are strong are the ones you cannot tell they are composites!

Other than that I also see issues with the banding in the left corner and the upper right corner, I know that struggle well. The colors and pixelation in the left corner show the difficulties of the night photographer in creating balanced stacks that don't break down in the editing process.